[Serkevan]

It is fairly disappointing that they are probably not going to upgrade the prism for a newer K-1. If they don't upgrade that, I'm afraid the K-1iii would end up being a D850-lite with IBIS and astrotracer. Which is still good, if uninspiring.


Well, more time to save for whenever that happens - the AF isn't painful nearly often enough for me to shell out thousands on just that upgrade, and there's no DSLR on the market that would noticeably beat the K-1 for IQ until we get to MF setups over 10k€.

[Pål Jensen]

I'd expect them to match or exceed every feature of the top Nikon and Canon (and every other manufacturers') models. When you are manufacturing the last of the DSLRs and positioning yourself to be the only maker of DSLRs – to be the niche provider – it seems to me that matching or exceeding every spec of every existing camera is a must.

The K-3-3 did not check all the boxes. And until every box is checked, there is little (no?) reason for any but the brand faithful to buy Pentax.

Here is the last company to be offering a newly-designed DSLR at a premium price, and they don't completely surpass what is already on the market. Even the Pentax Forums review rated the camera at less than 9 (8.8). Other reviewers have also been less than astonished by the K-3-3. Unfortunately, that's not how it should have been. It took a while for this camera to come to market. Every reaction from every review should have been "Wow!"

The company has already made the decision to not enter the mirrorless market, saying they are DSLR camera makers. So they need to make the absolute best DSLR cameras that can be made. Refine the K-3-3 and finish checking the boxes. Bring out a K-1-3 and make sure it is better than anything comparable right from the start. Become the niche company that is the "go-to" for anyone wanting a DSLR.

You have obviously never used a K-3III
There is no camera that exceeds or match any other camera on all parameters; particularly not at $2000. The K-3III is the most capable APS DSLR on the market. That is good enough....

---------- Post added 11-28-21 at 02:29 PM ----------

It is fairly disappointing that they are probably not going to upgrade the prism for a newer K-1. If they don't upgrade that, I'm afraid the K-1iii would end up being a D850-lite with IBIS and astrotracer. Which is still good, if uninspiring..

They may think that the K-1 viewfinder is good enough for a AF FF DSLR.
I don't think a slight upgrade of the K-1 is likely. The K-1 is such a capable value for money proposition that an upgrade need to be compelling enough to make current owners want to switch. The K-1 was the first FF Pentax DSLR. Hence it filled a "need" in the marked. The successor is not that lucky: it needs to deliver a lot more which is difficult as the K-1 is as complete as it is.
Lots of more megapixels is perhaps part of the solution to this dilemma....

[angerdan]

I think it's interesting to see that super telephoto was widely requested in the chat - not just a PF discussion.

I wonder how many of those requesting it would be seriously interested in buying one, or just want to see it to see a more complete lens line up available?

There seems to be real interest in an successor of the DA560 or an D FA* 400mm f4:
HD Pentax DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW replacement : what are your thoughts ? - PentaxForums.com
Pentax - Thoughts on making a DA*/DFA 400mm F4? - PentaxForums.com
DA* 400mm F4 coming! - PentaxForums.com
Will we ever get a 400mm f2.8 lens for sports photographers? - PentaxForums.com
Looking for 400mm option for K-3 - PentaxForums.com
I would like an updated DA*300 - PentaxForums.com
Lenses you'd love to see refreshed - PentaxForums.com
What is your dream Pentax lens? - PentaxForums.com
New telephoto lens design patent - PentaxForums.com
When will we get a REAL Pentax wildlife lens? - PentaxForums.com
Current tele glass - PentaxForums.com
Pentax prime lens wishlist survey 2018 - PentaxForums.com
Which Star Lens you want a renew and HD version mostly now? - PentaxForums.com
DA* upgrade this fall ? - PentaxForums.com
Super-telephoto a pipe dream on Pentax FF? - PentaxForums.com

[Serkevan]

Lots of more megapixels is perhaps part of the solution to this dilemma....

IMO, it isn't. It sounds good on spec sheets and all that, and for the handful of people who print at 1m+ sizes, but it's not actually useful for a large majority of people (and then you still need the lenses to be ridiculously good, and upscaling software is getting very good so the need is mitigated). The R6 apparently sold like hot cakes despite its 20MP sensor, and Sony keeps churning out bodies at resolutions below 36MP, so I am quite certain the market is there.

Personally, doubling down on the user experience is important - and a fantastic OVF is a good way to go about it. The one in the K-1 is good, but that's... it. It's not great. It's not bad, definitely, but it's not as "oh wow" as that one time I handled an older 1D series camera (yes, obviously the price range is nowhere nearby ). Going all in into the "DSLR experience" would in my view be a good differentiator for Pentax.
I'm sure they'll find ways to surprise us in a positive way. I'll just wait for actual announcements and keep shooting my excellent machine in the meantime - one would be forgiven for thinking the K-1 was the culmination of many developments (and not the first foray into a format), honestly.

[Kunzite]

The R6 apparently sold like hot cakes despite its 20MP sensor, and Sony keeps churning out bodies at resolutions below 36MP, so I am quite certain the market is there.

Both Canon and Sony (and Nikon) are following basically the same stratified product line, with a less expensive lower resolution camera and a more expensive higher resolution one (ignoring the top-end monsters in this context). It works well for them.

I'm not sure Pentax could afford to follow the same low res/high res model. Replacing the K-1ii with a lower resolution model, with perhaps a 24MP sensor, would not be well received by a good part of their users - would be seen as a downgrade.
Particularly by those who just bought some D FA* primes

IMO the best choice is to keep an image quality edge over the APS-C.

[bertwert]

There seems to be real interest in an successor of the DA560 or an D FA* 400mm f4:
HD Pentax DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW replacement : what are your thoughts ? - PentaxForums.com
Pentax - Thoughts on making a DA*/DFA 400mm F4? - PentaxForums.com
DA* 400mm F4 coming! - PentaxForums.com
Will we ever get a 400mm f2.8 lens for sports photographers? - PentaxForums.com
Looking for 400mm option for K-3 - PentaxForums.com
I would like an updated DA*300 - PentaxForums.com
Lenses you'd love to see refreshed - PentaxForums.com
What is your dream Pentax lens? - PentaxForums.com
New telephoto lens design patent - PentaxForums.com
When will we get a REAL Pentax wildlife lens? - PentaxForums.com
Current tele glass - PentaxForums.com
Pentax prime lens wishlist survey 2018 - PentaxForums.com
Which Star Lens you want a renew and HD version mostly now? - PentaxForums.com
DA* upgrade this fall ? - PentaxForums.com
Super-telephoto a pipe dream on Pentax FF? - PentaxForums.com

Yes, many people on this forum have expressed that they'd like to see such a lens. Hence the comment about non-PentaxForums interest. That being said, how many here have said they'd like the to see one, but won't actually buy it? Of course that depends on what it is, and price level.

[Serkevan]

Both Canon and Sony (and Nikon) are following basically the same stratified product line, with a less expensive lower resolution camera and a more expensive higher resolution one (ignoring the top-end monsters in this context). It works well for them.

I'm not sure Pentax could afford to follow the same low res/high res model. Replacing the K-1ii with a lower resolution model, with perhaps a 24MP sensor, would not be well received by a good part of their users - would be seen as a downgrade.
Particularly by those who just bought some D FA* primes

IMO the best choice is to keep an image quality edge over the APS-C.

Yes, I'm not saying the K-1iii should have a lower resolution sensor. I'm saying that an upgrade in megapixels won't really make the camera very attractive by itself (particularly if the price is high): forgoing the meatier improvements to "just" make a K-1iii with K-3iii internals and a (say) 61 MP sensor will give us a camera with, yes, much better AF, but performance... I calculated a similar buffer/burst rate to the K-1 (about 20 raws, at about 5 fps), going by the K-3iii's data rates in the PF review - although obviously that metric would look better with a 42/45 MP chip. Basically, the data rate is significantly higher now, but the actual end result would be similar unless they make another round of improvements to the electronics.

[biz-engineer]

Yes, I'm not saying the K-1iii should have a lower resolution sensor.

I don't get why people asking a 24Mpixel full frame don't just get a Pentax K1. The difference between 24Mp (4000x6000) and 36Mp (4912x7360) is 912x1360 pixels, it's no that much of a difference, except a 24Mp FF would have an OLPF on top, just less details in images. Now, if the idea behind the 24Mp FF is the lower price (e.g $1300) that's unlikely to fit how Pentax position itself as niche/low volume manufacturer.

[reh321]

Both Canon and Sony (and Nikon) are following basically the same stratified product line, with a less expensive lower resolution camera and a more expensive higher resolution one (ignoring the top-end monsters in this context). It works well for them.

I'm not sure Pentax could afford to follow the same low res/high res model. Replacing the K-1ii with a lower resolution model, with perhaps a 24MP sensor, would not be well received by a good part of their users - would be seen as a downgrade.
Particularly by those who just bought some D FA* primes

IMO the best choice is to keep an image quality edge over the APS-C.

I don't get why people asking a 24Mpixel full frame don't just get a Pentax K1. The difference between 24Mp (4000x6000) and 36Mp (4912x7360) is 912x1360 pixels, it's no that much of a difference, except a 24Mp FF would have an OLPF on top, just less details in images. Now, if the idea behind the 24Mp FF is the lower price (e.g $1300) that's unlikely to fit how Pentax position itself as niche/low volume manufacturer.

The idea is not to replace the K-1 by a 24mp version, but to supplement it.
The idea behind a 24mp one is to provide faster bursts, longer {effectively} buffer, and {perhaps} better high ISO performance.
A 36mp K-1 would make sense as an introduction to the “FF” line only if it would stay in production when the newer {and higher mp} came out;
It would clearly not meet the above goals - it would merely serve as an entry point to “FF”.

[Kunzite]

Yes, I'm not saying the K-1iii should have a lower resolution sensor. I'm saying that an upgrade in megapixels won't really make the camera very attractive by itself (particularly if the price is high): forgoing the meatier improvements to "just" make a K-1iii with K-3iii internals and a (say) 61 MP sensor will give us a camera with, yes, much better AF, but performance... I calculated a similar buffer/burst rate to the K-1 (about 20 raws, at about 5 fps), going by the K-3iii's data rates in the PF review - although obviously that metric would look better with a 42/45 MP chip. Basically, the data rate is significantly higher now, but the actual end result would be similar unless they make another round of improvements to the electronics.

I'm not sure what is the best answer; even if discussing what I'd want for myself.
The 42MP sensor looks fine, more than fast enough - goes up to 10fps on Sony - and would be a resolution improvement compared to the K-1ii. The 61MP sensor is equally fast. I don't need the extra resolution, but my D FA* 50mm would clearly benefit.
Then there's the write speed issue, and I agree with you. It has to be faster than the K-1's. Does it mean I'd be happier with a 42MP version?

I'm not assuming further improvements to the electronics, but certainly these would be welcome.

In the end, even a 33MP camera might be able to convince me. Particularly if they'd enlarge the AF coverage and do some other neat tricks.
But it still would feel like a step behind.

[Kunzite]

The idea is not to replace the K-1 by a 24mp version, but to supplement it.
The idea behind a 24mp one is to provide faster bursts, longer {effectively} buffer, and {perhaps} better high ISO performance.
A 36mp K-1 would make sense as an introduction to the “FF” line only if it would stay in production when the newer {and higher mp} came out.

I don't quite see the point of a 24MP FF, since that role is served by the K-3iii.
If they could launch two models in a relatively quick succession... but it doesn't seems they can. So my assumption is that they'd have to cover as many bases with one camera - for now.

Just using a newer sensor would improve the burst speed, possibly maxing out the mechanical capabilities. Even the higher resolution sensors, if it's not an ancient one
There's of course the buffer (can they add more RAM?) and the card write speed. This IMO is the only technical argument in favor of lower resolutions.

[mbukal]

if Pentax starts with a new manual focus camera shouldn't it be for him and his accompanying lenses / adapted for this type of use,

so Pentax to this day does not have its own lenses e.g. in ff: dfa * 24-70 / 2,8 + dfa24-120/ 4 + dfa70-200 / 4 + dfa70-300 / 4,5-5,6 + dfa250-600/5,6 (please, I do not count rebranded other people's lenses), thank God for the replacement in the apsc-u for da * 16-50 / 2.8 and it is still waiting with the same characteristics and for da* 50-135 / 2.8

now to start with new manual lenses, I think that would be an MISSION IMPOSSIBLE for Pentax, in which Tom Cruise as the main protagonist in any form would not help either

a new body without accompanying lenses makes no sense especially when the necessary new lenses come out very slowly for existing bodies

[reh321]

I don't quite see the point of a 24MP FF, since that role is served by the K-3iii.
If they could launch two models in a relatively quick succession... but it doesn't seems they can. So my assumption is that they'd have to cover as many bases with one camera - for now.

Just using a newer sensor would improve the burst speed, possibly maxing out the mechanical capabilities. Even the higher resolution sensors, if it's not an ancient one
There's of course the buffer (can they add more RAM?) and the card write speed. This IMO is the only technical argument in favor of lower resolutions.

Newer sensor might improve burst speeds if the processor can ‘drink out of fire hose’. We know that a 24mp sensor would - from the pov of the electronics, it would be like being fed by a K-3 sensor {in-fact, it is possible that this would take little development team time ….. just fit the K-3 electronics plus 24mp “FF” sensor into a K-1 body}.

[Kunzite]

Newer sensor might improve burst speeds if the processor can ‘drink out of fire hose’. We know that a 24mp sensor would - from the pov of the electronics, it would be like being fed by a K-3 sensor {in-fact, it is possible that this would take little development team time ….. just fit the K-3 electronics plus 24mp “FF” sensor into a K-1 body}.

With Pentax, it depends on the accelerator - but otherwise it's sensor to memory transfer.

My bad, I forgot about the accelerator. If it can do no more than 24MP@12FPS, a 61MP sensor would be roughly limited to K-1ii's levels.
I don't think they would reach 12FPS with a FF mirror; so whatever they'd do, the K-3iii would be the faster camera.

[Serkevan]

I'm not sure what is the best answer; even if discussing what I'd want for myself.
The 42MP sensor looks fine, more than fast enough - goes up to 10fps on Sony - and would be a resolution improvement compared to the K-1ii. The 61MP sensor is equally fast. I don't need the extra resolution, but my D FA* 50mm would clearly benefit.
Then there's the write speed issue, and I agree with you. It has to be faster than the K-1's. Does it mean I'd be happier with a 42MP version?

I'm not assuming further improvements to the electronics, but certainly these would be welcome.

In the end, even a 33MP camera might be able to convince me. Particularly if they'd enlarge the AF coverage and do some other neat tricks.
But it still would feel like a step behind.

Yeah, it's my feeling as well... I'm sorta fine with Pentax keeping the K-1 series as a slow (let's say 7 fps on a 42 MP sensor, which... actually isn't really slow anymore but it's slower than other competitors), but I'd like to see meaningful upgrades in other areas.


I'm not surprised to see the designers pondering for a long time about the best way to go (and seeming not having reached a conclusion). It is a tough question to crack, with no clearly "best" answer, IMO. I suppose that a K-1iiA with K-3iii internals and a $2000-2200 price tag as a direct refresh to the K-1ii (so really minimal R&D needed*) would be a nice thing to have as long as there is already a plan for a serious improvement to the series.


*From what I gather, it does feel like the K-3iii's prism really drove a lot of the high price of the new machine. Now that the development is sorted out, putting the new AF system wouldn't be particularly expensive, the sensors of today are certainly not much more expensive than the ones of yesteryear, and the electronics are still not best in class stuff so they should also be relatively affordable, from a bill of materials point of view.